MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091145724 · doi:10.1109/ispass.2014.6844472

Accelerating network-on-chip simulation via sampling

2014· article· en· W2091145724 on OpenAlexaff
Wenbo Dai, Natalie Enright Jerger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInterconnection Networks and Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSampling (signal processing)Design space explorationSpeedupNetwork on a chipCacheChipArchitectureLimit (mathematics)Focus (optics)Range (aeronautics)Computer architectureParallel computingDistributed computingComputer engineeringEmbedded systemTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Architectural complexity continues to grow as we consider the large design space of multiple cores, cache architectures, networks-on-chip and memory controllers for emerging architectures. Simulators are growing in complexity to reflect each of these system components. However, many full-system simulators fail to take advantage of the underlying hardware resources such as multiple cores; as a result, simulation times have grown significantly in recent years. Long turnaround times limit the range and depth of design space exploration that is tractable. Communication has emerged as a first class design consideration and has led to significant research into networks-on-chip (NoC). The NoC is yet another component of the architecture that must be faithfully modeled in simulation. Given its importance, we focus on accelerating NoC simulation through the use of sampling techniques; sampling can provide both accurate results and fast evaluation. We propose NoCLabs and NoCPoint, two sampling methodologies utilizing statistical sampling theory and traffic phase behavior, respectively. Experimental results show that our proposed NoCLabs and NoCPoint estimate NoC performance with an average error of 5% while achieving one order of magnitude speedup on average.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInterconnection Networks and SystemsFrench-language works237,207